Does any one have any news that restrictions on importing diesel-burning vehicles have been relaxed recently? I heard this at the VW dealer yesterday, but haven't heard any official release on it. Charle-Pan Dawson Assistant Project Manager Energy Efficiency Services NYSERDA 518-862-1090 X 3244 Fax: 518-862-1091 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ps.com To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com cc: 08/26/02 10:11 AM Subject: [biofuel] Digest Number 1086 Please respond to biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ There are 25 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. Re: MN USA Fuel$ From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2. Re: MN USA Fuel$ From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3. Re: MN USA Fuel$ From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4. It's An ENIGMA From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 5. Re: MN USA Fuel$ From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 6. Any good, active e-list for photovoltaic applications? From: Christopher Witmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 7. Re: Inventing around the Biox process From: "Neoteric Biofuels Inc." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 8. Re: Inventing around the Biox process From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 9. Thanks for Mercedes diesel info From: Marc de Piolenc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 10. WVO for heat, preliminary results From: "sbosco9" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11. Re: Inventing around the Biox process From: "Neoteric Biofuels Inc." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12. Re: Inventing around the Biox process From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 13. Re: Inventing around the Biox process From: "Mike Nixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 14. Re: Inventing around the Biox process From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 15. sodium methoxide, was Re: process questions From: "girl_mark_fire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 16. Re: Inventing around the Biox process From: Jan Steinman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 17. sodium methoxide, was Re: process questions From: "girl_mark_fire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 18. Re: sodium methoxide, was Re: process questions From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 19. Re: molecular sieves for dehydrating ethanol From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 20. Re: Inventing around the Biox process From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 21. Re: Inventing around the Biox process From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 22. Re: WVO for heat, preliminary results From: studio53 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 23. Re: process questions From: "pcooke04102" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 24. boiling glycerine/soap From: "pcooke04102" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 25. sodium methoxide, was Re: process questions From: "Ehren Bucholtz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 1 Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:26:16 -0400 From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: MN USA Fuel$ Why do they note %s of ethanol (E-85), but not biodiesel (B-?.?) in their fuel blends? The soy diesel could be anything from B-2.5 to B-20. The probability is almost impossible that it was B-100, which is the correct designation for "bio-diesel." Todd Swearingen ----- Original Message ----- From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 1:49 AM Subject: [biofuel] MN USA Fuel$ > Passed through the State of Minnesota while noticing regional fuel prices -- > > $1.309 E-85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline - summer blend) 96 to 110 octane > $1.329 Soy Diesel > $1.329 Diesel > $1.369 Premium Diesel > $1.399 Low sulfur (Blue Planet) gasoline, 87 octane > $1.399 Gasoline, 87 octane > $1.419 Gasoline, 90 octane > $1.419 Gasoline, 90 octane with 10% ethanol > $1.479 Gasoline, 92 octane > > `` > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 2 Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:17:36 -0500 From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: MN USA Fuel$ > Why do they note %s of ethanol (E-85), but not biodiesel (B-?.?) > in their fuel blends? I noted the percent for E-85 from past readings. I was unable to gather information for the Soy Diesel but suspect B2 as previously discussed last Spring, "key word" -- "Minnesota" legislation. The upper Midwest (USA) appears to be working thru farmer co-ops, commercial truck stops and/or "Koch" Industries. Keith wrote -- Subject: [biofuel] Biodiesel: A Fuel That Starts Low on the Food Chain Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 > The soy diesel could be anything from B-2.5 to B-20. The > probability is almost impossible that it was B-100, which is the > correct designation for "bio-diesel." > > Todd Swearingen ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 3 Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 14:52:04 -0500 From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: MN USA Fuel$ > The soy diesel could be anything from B-2.5 to B-20. The > probability is almost impossible that it was B-100, which is the > correct designation for "bio-diesel." > > Todd Swearingen MH wrote: If memory serves B-2 (2% biodiesel, 98% diesel fuel) increases lubricity and avoids fuel seal alterations. If this is correct this would help older diesel farm tractors adapt till fuel seals are upgraded sometime in the future. Additions and corrections are welcome. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 07:36:18 +0900 From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: It's An ENIGMA This is a good article. Last time we looked it only had the first two parts. Parts 3 and 4 available now. Best Keith It's An ENIGMA Who said you can't build a parallel hybrid with 20 miles ZEV range? Not the team at San Diego State University. http://evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=312 EV World:It's An ENIGMA http://www.evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=315 EV World:It's An ENIGMA - Part 2 http://www.evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=319 EV World:It's An ENIGMA - Part 3 http://www.evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=325 EV World:It's An ENIGMA - Part 4 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 5 Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 18:48:56 -0400 From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: MN USA Fuel$ As does B-20. B-2 is more a greenwash than anything else. I suppose it's better than nothing, but not by much. Todd Swearingen ----- Original Message ----- From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] MN USA Fuel$ > > The soy diesel could be anything from B-2.5 to B-20. The > > probability is almost impossible that it was B-100, which is the > > correct designation for "bio-diesel." > > > > Todd Swearingen > > MH wrote: > If memory serves B-2 (2% biodiesel, 98% diesel fuel) > increases lubricity and avoids fuel seal alterations. > If this is correct this would help older diesel farm tractors adapt > till fuel seals are upgraded sometime in the future. > > Additions and corrections are welcome. > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 6 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 08:34:24 +0900 From: Christopher Witmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Any good, active e-list for photovoltaic applications? I need to locate an online discussion group or email list where the nuts and bolts of photovoltaic electrical generation systems are discussed in detail. If anyone could recommend such a venue, I would be most grateful. Thanks! Christopher Witmer ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 7 Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 16:23:32 -0700 From: "Neoteric Biofuels Inc." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Inventing around the Biox process I would suggest that anyone who has a serious interest in regional or larger scale biodiesel production simply contact Tim Haig and talk to him, they are open for business, and happy to discuss with potential plant purchasers possible terms. They are not interested in making biodiesel, AFAIK...they want to sell plants not product. If the process, and the deal struck make sense, go ahead and go at it - regional production with the Biox process plant, that is. I know some will disagree, but I have to say it appears to me that continuous production plants will win out over batch plants. Continuous and somewhat capital-intensive processes, combined with good and inexpensive transportation systems, have certainly replaced many local small scale operations in many other industries - the question will be scale. At what scale, in Canada/US, with our rail and highway links, will a more costly (financed) continuous plant beat a less expensive (maybe "paid for and built from surplus bits"), but less efficient, batch plant? We talk "small scale" and "mega"....but there will likely be some regional optimum scale, keeping in mind that "region", in economic geography, is quite a loose and flexible term! Edward Beggs, BES, MSc Neoteric Biofuels Inc. Located in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada 1-250-768-3169 Fax: 1-250-768-3118 Toll-Free (Canada/USA): 1-866-768-3169 http://www.biofuels.ca [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 8/24/02 10:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The Biox process has some particular advantages that to a large extent > simplify rather than complicate the process. This is described in their > recent press reports. of which the following is one example: > > "This process utilizes a co-solvent; base catalyzed one phase process. The > advantages presented were those of a continuous process with significant > reduction in process time and the success achieved when using feedstocks of > high free fatty acid content. The goal of the biox process is to produce > biodiesel from any feedstock at a cost of 15-20 cents/litre (CND)." > > Porcine lipase as a catalyst is readily available and the co-solvent itself > is not unique. The process, nevertheless, appears unique enough to merit > claims that the USPTO recognizes as patentable. > > How difficult would it be to invent around this process and/or to improve > upon it? And, if this is not possible, since the process offers unique > advantages, what would a homebrew process look like using some of the > essential Biox process details? > > The US Patent Office encourages the development of new technology, for which > reason they require patent details to be clearly presented; this will enable > others to see whether the technology can be improved. The technique of > "inventing around the patent" to obtain its competitive advantages is the > first thing a megabusiness often considers, before consideing whether or not > to buy out the competitive patent rights of another patent holder. > Alternatively, there have been instances of a company just usiing the > technology of a patent for their commercial purposes, and say "sue me." > > There appear therefore to be two reasons for looking at thie Biox patented > technology, first to see if you can invent around the Biox process, and > second to see if the Biox technology can simplify the homebrew process, > without, however, using the technology for commercial purposes. Note that a > patent does not prevent use of the technology exceot for commercial benefit. > > > For the technology to develop into regional-sized businesses rather than into > a mega business, this goal would seem to require, or at least to be > expedited, by developing a patentable positoin and then putting those > proprietary rights into the public domain. Alternatively, a new business > could be formed, using the technology on a proprietary basis, but with the > deliberate intent of developing the technology on a regional basis. > > Otherwise, the Biox process, being based upon its own propietary, patentable > position, appears destined, or at least as is their intent, to become a > megabusiness and take over the commercial market, much as Edward Beggs > described in his 8/17 message. . > > Glenn Ellis > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 8 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:12:09 +0900 From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Inventing around the Biox process >I would suggest that anyone who has a serious interest in regional or larger >scale biodiesel production simply contact Tim Haig and talk to him, they are >open for business, and happy to discuss with potential plant purchasers >possible terms. > >They are not interested in making biodiesel, AFAIK...they want to sell >plants not product. Your heroes, Ed. They certainly make a lot of claims, some of which seem quite wild, and/or contradictory. Reads a lot like poorly edited sales talk. Have they actually managed to produce any product yet to back up their claims? I mean not test-tubes full, proper production that meets ASTM standards, as they claim, at a cost of 8 cents a litre (or was that 18 cents a litre)? Do they have any track record at all? Or just PR talk and pending patents, which they might not be able to patent? Keith >If the process, and the deal struck make sense, go ahead and go at it - >regional production with the Biox process plant, that is. > >I know some will disagree, but I have to say it appears to me that >continuous production plants will win out over batch plants. Continuous and >somewhat capital-intensive processes, combined with good and inexpensive >transportation systems, have certainly replaced many local small scale >operations in many other industries - the question will be scale. At what >scale, in Canada/US, with our rail and highway links, will a more costly >(financed) continuous plant beat a less expensive (maybe "paid for and built >from surplus bits"), but less efficient, batch plant? >We talk "small scale" and "mega"....but there will likely be some regional >optimum scale, keeping in mind that "region", in economic geography, is >quite a loose and flexible term! > > >Edward Beggs, BES, MSc >Neoteric Biofuels Inc. >Located in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada >1-250-768-3169 Fax: 1-250-768-3118 >Toll-Free (Canada/USA): 1-866-768-3169 >http://www.biofuels.ca >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >on 8/24/02 10:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > The Biox process has some particular advantages that to a large extent > > simplify rather than complicate the process. This is described in their > > recent press reports. of which the following is one example: > > > > "This process utilizes a co-solvent; base catalyzed one phase process. The > > advantages presented were those of a continuous process with significant > > reduction in process time and the success achieved when using feedstocks of > > high free fatty acid content. The goal of the biox process is to produce > > biodiesel from any feedstock at a cost of 15-20 cents/litre (CND)." > > > > Porcine lipase as a catalyst is readily available and the co-solvent itself > > is not unique. The process, nevertheless, appears unique enough to merit > > claims that the USPTO recognizes as patentable. > > > > How difficult would it be to invent around this process and/or to improve > > upon it? And, if this is not possible, since the process offers unique > > advantages, what would a homebrew process look like using some of the > > essential Biox process details? > > > > The US Patent Office encourages the development of new >technology, for which > > reason they require patent details to be clearly presented; this >will enable > > others to see whether the technology can be improved. The technique of > > "inventing around the patent" to obtain its competitive advantages is the > > first thing a megabusiness often considers, before consideing >whether or not > > to buy out the competitive patent rights of another patent holder. > > Alternatively, there have been instances of a company just usiing the > > technology of a patent for their commercial purposes, and say "sue me." > > > > There appear therefore to be two reasons for looking at thie Biox patented > > technology, first to see if you can invent around the Biox process, and > > second to see if the Biox technology can simplify the homebrew process, > > without, however, using the technology for commercial purposes. >Note that a > > patent does not prevent use of the technology exceot for >commercial benefit. > > > > > > For the technology to develop into regional-sized businesses >rather than into > > a mega business, this goal would seem to require, or at least to be > > expedited, by developing a patentable positoin and then putting those > > proprietary rights into the public domain. Alternatively, a new business > > could be formed, using the technology on a proprietary basis, but with the > > deliberate intent of developing the technology on a regional basis. > > > > Otherwise, the Biox process, being based upon its own propietary, >patentable > > position, appears destined, or at least as is their intent, to become a > > megabusiness and take over the commercial market, much as Edward Beggs > > described in his 8/17 message. . > > > > Glenn Ellis ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 9 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:02:37 +0800 From: Marc de Piolenc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Thanks for Mercedes diesel info Thanks for the responses to my plea for leads to service info for my MB-100 van. Marc de Piolenc ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 10 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 02:36:19 -0000 From: "sbosco9" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: WVO for heat, preliminary results Hello from the newbie on the list I have been having some success with burning WVO in a traditional oil burner. I at first attempted running it through mixed with an equal amount of #2 heating oil (aka diesel fuel)- although the mixture seemed to atomize normally, the mist only partially ignited. Second attempt, I mixed one part WVO with two parts #2 oil, this ignited almost completely. I have now logged about one hour of burning this mixture, starting from a cold state several times. The combustion makes an oscillating sound for a couple of minutes on startup, along with some puffs of blowback through the cracks in the boiler door, but it cleans up after the burner has been on for 2-3 minutes. The improvement could be due to the heat which has built up in the firebox walls- at that point the flame is clean white with very little smoke. After reading some of the things which have been written on this subject, I was expecting the WVO to block my nozzle orifice, but, (knock on oil can) this hasn't happened yet. I'd like to eliminate the initial dodginess in the flame, and I'd also like to increase my ratio of WVO to #2 oil- one way I might be able to accomplish this is to start the burner with pure #2 oil then switch over to WVO/#2 mix after the firebox is good and hot (following the model employed in WVO burning cars). Preheating the oil also occurred to me, but it seems like any preheating I could do safely would be pretty modest compared with the firebox heat. Another idea is to build a babington style burner, which I have begun to assemble the parts for. I suspect that this type of burner will suffer from the same problem though- incomplete combustion of the oil mist at lower temperatures. The only babington style burner which I have seen in action was affixed to a 4" diameter steel tube about 20" long, again, possibly to build up heat quickly and radiate it back onto the flame. Comments welcome. Stephen Bosco Arlington, Mass., USA ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 11 Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 19:54:18 -0700 From: "Neoteric Biofuels Inc." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Inventing around the Biox process Keith: They are not my "heroes", actually, but I think anyone who has a real interest in what they have to offer, or what they have accomplished so far, should simply ask them for an update. Web sites don't always get updated or edited as well as we'd like, as you and I both know, so it's best to just send off an email and ask. Ed on 8/25/02 6:12 PM, Keith Addison at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I would suggest that anyone who has a serious interest in regional or larger >> scale biodiesel production simply contact Tim Haig and talk to him, they are >> open for business, and happy to discuss with potential plant purchasers >> possible terms. >> >> They are not interested in making biodiesel, AFAIK...they want to sell >> plants not product. > > Your heroes, Ed. They certainly make a lot of claims, some of which > seem quite wild, and/or contradictory. Reads a lot like poorly edited > sales talk. Have they actually managed to produce any product yet to > back up their claims? I mean not test-tubes full, proper production > that meets ASTM standards, as they claim, at a cost of 8 cents a > litre (or was that 18 cents a litre)? Do they have any track record > at all? Or just PR talk and pending patents, which they might not be > able to patent? > > Keith > > > >> If the process, and the deal struck make sense, go ahead and go at it - >> regional production with the Biox process plant, that is. >> >> I know some will disagree, but I have to say it appears to me that >> continuous production plants will win out over batch plants. Continuous and >> somewhat capital-intensive processes, combined with good and inexpensive >> transportation systems, have certainly replaced many local small scale >> operations in many other industries - the question will be scale. At what >> scale, in Canada/US, with our rail and highway links, will a more costly >> (financed) continuous plant beat a less expensive (maybe "paid for and built >> from surplus bits"), but less efficient, batch plant? >> We talk "small scale" and "mega"....but there will likely be some regional >> optimum scale, keeping in mind that "region", in economic geography, is >> quite a loose and flexible term! >> >> >> Edward Beggs, BES, MSc >> Neoteric Biofuels Inc. >> Located in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada >> 1-250-768-3169 Fax: 1-250-768-3118 >> Toll-Free (Canada/USA): 1-866-768-3169 >> http://www.biofuels.ca >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> on 8/24/02 10:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> The Biox process has some particular advantages that to a large extent >>> simplify rather than complicate the process. This is described in their >>> recent press reports. of which the following is one example: >>> >>> "This process utilizes a co-solvent; base catalyzed one phase process. The >>> advantages presented were those of a continuous process with significant >>> reduction in process time and the success achieved when using feedstocks of >>> high free fatty acid content. The goal of the biox process is to produce >>> biodiesel from any feedstock at a cost of 15-20 cents/litre (CND)." >>> >>> Porcine lipase as a catalyst is readily available and the co-solvent itself >>> is not unique. The process, nevertheless, appears unique enough to merit >>> claims that the USPTO recognizes as patentable. >>> >>> How difficult would it be to invent around this process and/or to improve >>> upon it? And, if this is not possible, since the process offers unique >>> advantages, what would a homebrew process look like using some of the >>> essential Biox process details? >>> >>> The US Patent Office encourages the development of new >> technology, for which >>> reason they require patent details to be clearly presented; this >> will enable >>> others to see whether the technology can be improved. The technique of >>> "inventing around the patent" to obtain its competitive advantages is the >>> first thing a megabusiness often considers, before consideing >> whether or not >>> to buy out the competitive patent rights of another patent holder. >>> Alternatively, there have been instances of a company just usiing the >>> technology of a patent for their commercial purposes, and say "sue me." >>> >>> There appear therefore to be two reasons for looking at thie Biox patented >>> technology, first to see if you can invent around the Biox process, and >>> second to see if the Biox technology can simplify the homebrew process, >>> without, however, using the technology for commercial purposes. >> Note that a >>> patent does not prevent use of the technology exceot for >> commercial benefit. >>> >>> >>> For the technology to develop into regional-sized businesses >> rather than into >>> a mega business, this goal would seem to require, or at least to be >>> expedited, by developing a patentable positoin and then putting those >>> proprietary rights into the public domain. Alternatively, a new business >>> could be formed, using the technology on a proprietary basis, but with the >>> deliberate intent of developing the technology on a regional basis. >>> >>> Otherwise, the Biox process, being based upon its own propietary, >> patentable >>> position, appears destined, or at least as is their intent, to become a >>> megabusiness and take over the commercial market, much as Edward Beggs >>> described in his 8/17 message. . >>> >>> Glenn Ellis > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 12 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:49:40 +0900 From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Inventing around the Biox process >Keith: > >They are not my "heroes", actually, Oh. Sorry. You've certainly promoted them here very enthusiastically. When Erik wrote to Boocock and got a reply you were terribly impressed that the great man would deign to respond to the likes of us. >but I think anyone who has a real >interest in what they have to offer, or what they have accomplished so far, >should simply ask them for an update. Well, Erik didn't get much, just a brush off really, along with some contempt for homebrewers (with which I think you agreed). > Web sites don't always get updated or edited as well as we'd like, as you >and I both know, Links go out of date fast, but it's not a problem keeping a website in order, even a much bigger one that that. It's rather basic if you're out to impress people, which Biox is out to do. But people complain that there's no information there, nothing to back up the claims they make at their website and elsewhere, no analysis of their product to support their claim that it meets ASTM standards, nor that the cetane values are "too high to measure, over 80 at a minimum" (as they told a recent visitor). There's nothing to say that they've ever had it tested, nothing to say that they've ever even produced more than test batches. People read everything at their site and come back to the list saying they're none the wiser. Why are they so secretive? >so it's best to just send off an email and ask. And get the same contemptuous response Erik got? What does this mean Ed, that you also don't know if they've ever produced any product or not? You suggest anyone who has a serious interest in biodiesel production should simply contact Biox. You've compared Biox with well-established technology and found Biox better. Etc etc. All on just PR and hearsay? I agree with Paddy and with Todd. Something doesn't seem to add up with Biox. Since you've been promoting them here so heavily, maybe you should address that. Keith >Ed > > > > > >on 8/25/02 6:12 PM, Keith Addison at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> I would suggest that anyone who has a serious interest in >regional or larger > >> scale biodiesel production simply contact Tim Haig and talk to >him, they are > >> open for business, and happy to discuss with potential plant purchasers > >> possible terms. > >> > >> They are not interested in making biodiesel, AFAIK...they want to sell > >> plants not product. > > > > Your heroes, Ed. They certainly make a lot of claims, some of which > > seem quite wild, and/or contradictory. Reads a lot like poorly edited > > sales talk. Have they actually managed to produce any product yet to > > back up their claims? I mean not test-tubes full, proper production > > that meets ASTM standards, as they claim, at a cost of 8 cents a > > litre (or was that 18 cents a litre)? Do they have any track record > > at all? Or just PR talk and pending patents, which they might not be > > able to patent? > > > > Keith > > > > > > > >> If the process, and the deal struck make sense, go ahead and go at it - > >> regional production with the Biox process plant, that is. > >> > >> I know some will disagree, but I have to say it appears to me that > >> continuous production plants will win out over batch plants. >Continuous and > >> somewhat capital-intensive processes, combined with good and inexpensive > >> transportation systems, have certainly replaced many local small scale > >> operations in many other industries - the question will be scale. At what > >> scale, in Canada/US, with our rail and highway links, will a more costly > >> (financed) continuous plant beat a less expensive (maybe "paid >for and built > >> from surplus bits"), but less efficient, batch plant? > >> We talk "small scale" and "mega"....but there will likely be some regional > >> optimum scale, keeping in mind that "region", in economic geography, is > >> quite a loose and flexible term! > >> > >> > >> Edward Beggs, BES, MSc > >> Neoteric Biofuels Inc. > >> Located in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada > >> 1-250-768-3169 Fax: 1-250-768-3118 > >> Toll-Free (Canada/USA): 1-866-768-3169 > >> http://www.biofuels.ca > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> > >> on 8/24/02 10:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >>> The Biox process has some particular advantages that to a large extent > >>> simplify rather than complicate the process. This is described in their > >>> recent press reports. of which the following is one example: > >>> > >>> "This process utilizes a co-solvent; base catalyzed one phase >process. The > >>> advantages presented were those of a continuous process with significant > >>> reduction in process time and the success achieved when using >feedstocks of > >>> high free fatty acid content. The goal of the biox process is to produce > >>> biodiesel from any feedstock at a cost of 15-20 cents/litre (CND)." > >>> > >>> Porcine lipase as a catalyst is readily available and the >co-solvent itself > >>> is not unique. The process, nevertheless, appears unique >enough to merit > >>> claims that the USPTO recognizes as patentable. > >>> > >>> How difficult would it be to invent around this process and/or to improve > >>> upon it? And, if this is not possible, since the process offers unique > >>> advantages, what would a homebrew process look like using some of the > >>> essential Biox process details? > >>> > >>> The US Patent Office encourages the development of new > >> technology, for which > >>> reason they require patent details to be clearly presented; this > >> will enable > >>> others to see whether the technology can be improved. The technique of > >>> "inventing around the patent" to obtain its competitive >advantages is the > >>> first thing a megabusiness often considers, before consideing > >> whether or not > >>> to buy out the competitive patent rights of another patent holder. > >>> Alternatively, there have been instances of a company just usiing the > >>> technology of a patent for their commercial purposes, and say "sue me." > >>> > >>> There appear therefore to be two reasons for looking at thie >Biox patented > >>> technology, first to see if you can invent around the Biox process, and > >>> second to see if the Biox technology can simplify the homebrew process, > >>> without, however, using the technology for commercial purposes. > >> Note that a > >>> patent does not prevent use of the technology exceot for > >> commercial benefit. > >>> > >>> > >>> For the technology to develop into regional-sized businesses > >> rather than into > >>> a mega business, this goal would seem to require, or at least to be > >>> expedited, by developing a patentable positoin and then putting those > >>> proprietary rights into the public domain. Alternatively, a >new business > >>> could be formed, using the technology on a proprietary basis, >but with the > >>> deliberate intent of developing the technology on a regional basis. > >>> > >>> Otherwise, the Biox process, being based upon its own propietary, > >> patentable > >>> position, appears destined, or at least as is their intent, to become a > >>> megabusiness and take over the commercial market, much as Edward Beggs > >>> described in his 8/17 message. . > >>> > >>> Glenn Ellis ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 13 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 16:46:35 +1200 From: "Mike Nixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Inventing around the Biox process ----- Original Message ----- From: Keith Addison To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 3:49 PM Subject: Re: [biofuel] Inventing around the Biox process I'm beginning to fidget in my bath chair again with all this slanging to and fro about what purported pundits have or have not to say about the price of fish. Has anyone anything constructive to say on the actual subjects that are the reason for this excellent List ... like, how do you do it yourself? To be frank, I read the papers (when not doing The Times crossword) to see what big business is doing and who they are currently shafting, or what the latest Guru is claiming in order to enhance personal reputation and income. I read the List to see what ingenuity can do to trump the buggers. Can we not get back to subjects of vital interest to us all, like how magnets may help me get rid of my gout? Short Tempered of Bognor Regis. PS. The term "bugger" is now accepted PC in this part of the world, and has as much relationship to its original meaning as "gay", but in reverse. Now, there's a subject to get your teeth into if you really want to get off topic. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 14 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 00:39:52 -0400 From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Inventing around the Biox process > I know some will disagree, but I have to say it appears to me that > continuous production plants will win out over batch plants. Well Ed, you're certainly right about that. I'd kinda' like to know how it is that a batch plant is somehow inefficient? First of all the reagent/catalyst inputs are essentially the same between the Biox and a batch process. Both must heat all volumes of fluids to the boiling point of the alcohol in order to recover it from all phases. Biox includes the added cost of the co-solvent. Although recoverable, this adds extra volume that requires added heat inputs to achieve evaporative recovery. Relative to washing, there is relatively little in an acid/base process, whether it is batch or continuous. Both plants will have the same need to neutralize catalyst and recover or dispose of glycerin. Also, while a Biox plant may be sized to yield more production per given time period, so can a batch plant. Biox's 1 million gallon per year proto plant is actually less output than a 3,000 gallon a day batch plant. Labor would not be greatly different. When both plants are processing WVO, each would need a driver for collections and an "engineer" residing at the plant. Then there is the matter of capital costs. I seriously doubt that a 1 million gallon per year continuous plant is going to sell for $150,000 or less US, whereas a 3,000 gallon per day batch plant can be built for that or considerably less, depending if being built from the ground up and new equipment is purchased. Throw in the number of restaurants that it takes to feed a plant and the ever increasing radius that must be travelled with each incremental increase in a plant's size, and labor, fuel, maintenance and other collection costs begin to rise. Frankly, when WVO is the feedstock, a 3,000 gpd plant is pretty close to optimum, considering CDL road legal weights, hours of labor required to collect the feedstock and restaurants that won't permit collections during peak hours. And if the feedstock were SVO, a 3,000 gpd plant being fed by a soy extrusion/expeller facility would require ~27,000 acres of grain to keep it operational. That's ~42 square miles. Not every region is going to have contiguous farming of a single oilseed crop, which means an even larger land radius to keep the same plant fed, which means ever increasing supply costs. Then a person needs to ask him or herself exactly how and to whom the biodiesel is going to be unloaded. If it's sold in tanker bulk to a traditional distributor, margins are going to be considerably smaller than if sold in bulk to the local community. Here's a "for instance" that ought to gall just about anyone...and it's universal across the nation. On-road diesel in Ohio is taxed by state and federal governments to the tune of $0.45 a gallon. When on-road is selling at $1.45 a gallon, technically the off-road fuel should be $1.00 even. Or so you would think. Unfortunately, off-road fuel in 500 gallon purchases runs ~$1.25 + at the same time. The rationale served up by petrol distributors is that this is the cost of dying the fuel and keeping inventory. Uh-uh. The cost of dying the fuel is fractions of a penny per gallon. And bulk plants do a rather brisk business in off-road fuel. Simply, it is almost exclusively a distributor taking advantage of the price differential between taxed and non-taxed fuel in order to profiteer. So what does that have to do with Biox? Simply put, a regional batch plant can produce the same volume of biodiesel for approximately the same cradle to grave costs as a continual process facility. When manufacturing and distributing locally rather than centrally there is opportunity for higher margins without skinning the customer base alive. As frequently as not, if not more so, there will be no valid reason to centralize production on a voluminous scale, meaning that a CP plant such as Biox is actually less efficient economically than a batch plant.. Todd Swearingen > Continuous and > somewhat capital-intensive processes, combined with good and inexpensive > transportation systems, have certainly replaced many local small scale > operations in many other industries - the question will be scale. At what > scale, in Canada/US, with our rail and highway links, will a more costly > (financed) continuous plant beat a less expensive (maybe "paid for and built > from surplus bits"), but less efficient, batch plant? > > We talk "small scale" and "mega"....but there will likely be some regional > optimum scale, keeping in mind that "region", in economic geography, is > quite a loose and flexible term! > > > Edward Beggs, BES, MSc > Neoteric Biofuels Inc. > Located in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada > 1-250-768-3169 Fax: 1-250-768-3118 > Toll-Free (Canada/USA): 1-866-768-3169 > http://www.biofuels.ca > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > on 8/24/02 10:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > The Biox process has some particular advantages that to a large extent > > simplify rather than complicate the process. This is described in their > > recent press reports. of which the following is one example: > > > > "This process utilizes a co-solvent; base catalyzed one phase process. The > > advantages presented were those of a continuous process with significant > > reduction in process time and the success achieved when using feedstocks of > > high free fatty acid content. The goal of the biox process is to produce > > biodiesel from any feedstock at a cost of 15-20 cents/litre (CND)." > > > > Porcine lipase as a catalyst is readily available and the co-solvent itself > > is not unique. The process, nevertheless, appears unique enough to merit > > claims that the USPTO recognizes as patentable. > > > > How difficult would it be to invent around this process and/or to improve > > upon it? And, if this is not possible, since the process offers unique > > advantages, what would a homebrew process look like using some of the > > essential Biox process details? > > > > The US Patent Office encourages the development of new technology, for which > > reason they require patent details to be clearly presented; this will enable > > others to see whether the technology can be improved. The technique of > > "inventing around the patent" to obtain its competitive advantages is the > > first thing a megabusiness often considers, before consideing whether or not > > to buy out the competitive patent rights of another patent holder. > > Alternatively, there have been instances of a company just usiing the > > technology of a patent for their commercial purposes, and say "sue me." > > > > There appear therefore to be two reasons for looking at thie Biox patented > > technology, first to see if you can invent around the Biox process, and > > second to see if the Biox technology can simplify the homebrew process, > > without, however, using the technology for commercial purposes. Note that a > > patent does not prevent use of the technology exceot for commercial benefit. > > > > > > For the technology to develop into regional-sized businesses rather than into > > a mega business, this goal would seem to require, or at least to be > > expedited, by developing a patentable positoin and then putting those > > proprietary rights into the public domain. Alternatively, a new business > > could be formed, using the technology on a proprietary basis, but with the > > deliberate intent of developing the technology on a regional basis. > > > > Otherwise, the Biox process, being based upon its own propietary, patentable > > position, appears destined, or at least as is their intent, to become a > > megabusiness and take over the commercial market, much as Edward Beggs > > described in his 8/17 message. . > > > > Glenn Ellis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > > > Biofuels list archives: > > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 15 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 07:04:02 -0000 From: "girl_mark_fire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: sodium methoxide, was Re: process questions Hello Gray (I feel like I'm shadowing you all over the internet today or something) This is one of the places where from the fryer to the fuel tank is wrong/outdated, one more reason to get your information elsewhere! Could someone here set me straight on my understanding of the chemistry? the tickell book is adamant about using the methoxide immediately. But Ive been told that it's exposure to carbon dioxide that';s the problem with sodium methoxide going bad, not a time factor instead. If you keep it sealed tightly against air it'll keep- Todd, you guys make up methoxide ahead of time, right? (see also the really convenient and safer method called 'methoxide the easy way' in a two-stage (?) article on journey to forever, it's something I'd like us to be doing more at the berkeley co-op, Gray, though it certainly takes preparation ahead of time (you do the titration and mix the methoxide a day before you make fuel) that might not be practical in our situation) anyway, I'd like to know if CO is what the problem with storing methoxide is, or if it's a matter of evaporation or they just got it all wrong in that book (I doubt either of the latter). And when improperly-stored methoxide 'goes bad', what is it breaking down into? and is any of this at all a factor to consider in biodiesel production, as in, the various people who argue both for and against agitating with 'howling vortexes' and the like? Lastly, is any of this different if you're dealing with ethanol or kOH? Mark --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "T. Gray Shaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Peter, > > I keep waiting for someone with more experience to bring this up: You said > you waited overnight to add the last 1/4 of the methoxide. I quote from > _From the Fryer..._: "The biodiesel reaction is time-sensitive. You must > mix the sodium methoxide with the vegetable oil immediately after the > sodium methoxide is created." The answer to why you didn't get gelatinous > glycerine in the second stage and your final product is cloudy seems > obvious to me - or am I misunderstanding something? > > - Gray > > > >I have some questions regarding a 30 gallon batch I just made and > >would really appreciate some help. > >I have been using the 2 stage method this summer with success. I use > >6.25 grams of lye/litre of wvo with 25% of the volume of the wvo > >being methanol. 3/4 of that was added to the wvo and produced syrupy > >dark brown glycerine (like last time I made it). The next day I added > >the last 1/4 of the methoxide but did not get the gelatinous > >glycerine like I did last time, but got the dark liquidy syrup again. > >I am wondering why. Also, the final product is cloudy which might > >mean water in it. I have heated the final product to about 135-140 > >for a half hour but it did not seem to permanently get rid of the > >cloudiness. I do not wish to do the wash at the end-I've been having > >success running unwashed, clear fuel. So, knowing that I should heat > >the wvo hotter and longer before the process here are my questions: > > > >1) Why did I not get gelationous glycerine in the second stage? > > > >2 )Is the cloudiness water even though my reliable source of wvo does > >not let water get into his oil? > > > >3) What temp and how long do you need to heat the final product to > >evap the water-without evaporating the methanol (which boils off at > >140 degrees, I assume). > > > >4) Is the methanol that has successfully mixed with the oil in danger > >of boiling off above 140 degrees or will only the excess methanol > >boil off. > > > >5) If the cloudiness is water, why doesn't the water settle to the > >bottom the way it would after a wash? Why does it stay suspended? > >Does it eventually settle out to the bottom leaving clear bio-d on > >top? > > > >My batch before this one came out crystal clear and the car purrs > >with it. I don't want to run a cloudy mix in the car, should I wait > >to see if it settles-or heat it up again? Again how hot, how long.... > > > >Thanks in advance, > > > >Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > > >Biofuels list archives: > >http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > >To unsubscribe, send an email to: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 16 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 00:10:48 -0700 From: Jan Steinman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Inventing around the Biox process > From: "goat industries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Have we not considered that the biox process may be just a load of bullshit? >There seem to be a few things that don't add up - eg high cetane values, the >use of porcine lipase... "Porcine lipase" = pig fat digestion enzyme? I know just enough about organic chemistry to be dangerous, but without having extensively reviewed the Biox process, this does sound like a load. -- : Jan Steinman <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : Bytesmiths <http://www.Bytesmiths.com> : 19280 Rydman Court, West Linn, OR 97068, 503.635.3229 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 17 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 07:48:19 -0000 From: "girl_mark_fire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: sodium methoxide, was Re: process questions > > But Ive been told that it's exposure to carbon dioxide that';s the > problem with sodium methoxide going bad, not a time factor instead. oops, forgot this- so if that's the case, is this carbon dioxide problem in some way related to the way the lye 'carbonizes' if left exposed to humid air? (sorry, I really missed out on chemistry class way back when) ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 18 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:33:56 +0900 From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: sodium methoxide, was Re: process questions Hello Mark >Hello Gray >(I feel like I'm shadowing you all over the internet today or >something) > >This is one of the places where from the fryer to the fuel tank is >wrong/outdated, one more reason to get your information elsewhere! > > Could someone here set me straight on my understanding of the >chemistry? > >the tickell book is adamant about using the methoxide immediately. >But Ive been told that it's exposure to carbon dioxide that';s the >problem with sodium methoxide going bad, not a time factor instead. >If you keep it sealed tightly against air it'll keep- Todd, you guys >make up methoxide ahead of time, right? CO2 is a problem with lye. CO2 from the atmosphere neutralizes it and forms sodium carbonate. Carbonated lye is much whiter than pure lye, which is almost translucent. The carbonate in the lye won't harm the reaction, but you'll have to use more lye. Methoxide, dunno. "Decomposed by water," it says here, "gives ethers with alkyl halides". What's an alkyl halide? Sounds like seriously bad breath. Anyway, if the methoxide is sealed the methanol won't evaporate, and I don't see any problem, and haven't had any problems. Well, it does evaporate - at first the container swells a bit with the initial heat, then later it shrinks a bit, so whatever evaporates at first condenses again and isn't lost. It certainly doesn't degrade overnight, nor even over a few days. I've done this with some high FFA oils with single-stage, and if the methoxide had degraded it just wouldn't have worked properly, but it worked just fine. If you keep the stuff for months maybe it'll degrade somehow, but why would a person do that? It's not very nice stuff after all, better to keep the ingredients separate until needed, safer. If you're using a two-stage method at least you'd know how strong to make the mixture, otherwise you probably wouldn't know. It might make sense to mix up a concentrated stock solution and store that, adding more methanol as required before use, but actually the Easy way (below) really is so easy that I just don't see the point. > (see also the really convenient and safer method called 'methoxide >the easy way' in a two-stage (?) article on journey to forever, it's >something I'd like us to be doing more at the berkeley co-op, Gray, >though it certainly takes preparation ahead of time (you do the >titration and mix the methoxide a day before you make fuel) that >might not be practical in our situation) Not very much ahead of time, overnight is usually enough. "Methoxide the easy way" is here: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_aleksnew.html#easymeth If you're demonstrating, maybe you can demonstrate titration, make up a mixture and seal it, then for the process go on to use a batch you did the same thing to the day before. >anyway, I'd like to know if CO is what the problem with storing >methoxide is, or if it's a matter of evaporation or they just got it >all wrong in that book (I doubt either of the latter). And when >improperly-stored methoxide 'goes bad', what is it breaking down >into? and is any of this at all a factor to consider in biodiesel >production, as in, the various people who argue both for and against >agitating with 'howling vortexes' and the like? >Lastly, is any of this different if you're dealing with ethanol or >kOH? Ken Provost's worked a lot with this, one of his messages said: "Lye will work, but it dissolves very slowly in ethanol, even when heat is applied. KOH dissolves better (still slow)." You have to use more KOH (1.4 times as much), and more ethanol too. Regards Keith >Mark > > >--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "T. Gray Shaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Peter, > > > > I keep waiting for someone with more experience to bring this up: >You said > > you waited overnight to add the last 1/4 of the methoxide. I quote >from > > _From the Fryer..._: "The biodiesel reaction is time-sensitive. >You must > > mix the sodium methoxide with the vegetable oil immediately after >the > > sodium methoxide is created." The answer to why you didn't get >gelatinous > > glycerine in the second stage and your final product is cloudy seems > > obvious to me - or am I misunderstanding something? > > > > - Gray ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 19 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:09:16 +0900 From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: molecular sieves for dehydrating ethanol Trawling through the archives for something and found this, and no more - dated 26 November 2001. Any updates on this, guys? Keith Ken Provost wrote: >Greg H. writes: > > >Place the ethanol in a container like a 30 gal RubberMaid trash can. Add > >1/4 bag Portland cement, mix well, let settle, after 24 hrs, mix it all back > >up, let settle again. Without disturbing the sedament, remove the alcohol to > >just above the lime. The lime in the can combines with the water and gets > >solid (clumping). After it sets up, it can be removed from the can, leaving > >unreacted lime to be mixed with the next batch of ethanol, with more added > >as nessasary. A simple micron filter to remove any last lime, from the > >alcohol would be all that was needed. > > > >Anyone have any thoughts on it? > > >Great idea -- I'd thought of Plaster of Paris, but haven't tried it. Cement >sounds good too -- have you done it, and can you really "peel off" a layer >of solidified cement, exposing dry powder for reuse? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 20 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:09:13 +0900 From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Inventing around the Biox process Poor old feller swallowed his magnet by mistake, if that doesn't help his gout nothing will. Nurse! NURSE!!! Ah, there she is... He needs his whisky. What, he's fallen asleep? Well, wake him up so you can give him his sleeping pill. Keith >----- Original Message ----- >From: Keith Addison >To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com >Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 3:49 PM >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Inventing around the Biox process > >I'm beginning to fidget in my bath chair again with all this >slanging to and fro about what purported pundits have or have not to >say about the price of fish. > >Has anyone anything constructive to say on the actual subjects that >are the reason for this excellent List ... like, how do you do it >yourself? To be frank, I read the papers (when not doing The Times >crossword) to see what big business is doing and who they are >currently shafting, or what the latest Guru is claiming in order to >enhance personal reputation and income. I read the List to see what >ingenuity can do to trump the buggers. Can we not get back to >subjects of vital interest to us all, like how magnets may help me >get rid of my gout? > >Short Tempered of Bognor Regis. > >PS. The term "bugger" is now accepted PC in this part of the world, >and has as much relationship to its original meaning as "gay", but >in reverse. Now, there's a subject to get your teeth into if you >really want to get off topic. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 21 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 19:31:54 +0900 From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Inventing around the Biox process > > From: "goat industries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Have we not considered that the biox process may be just a load of bullshit? > >There seem to be a few things that don't add up - eg high cetane values, the > >use of porcine lipase... > >"Porcine lipase" = pig fat digestion enzyme? > >I know just enough about organic chemistry to be dangerous, but >without having extensively reviewed the Biox process, this does >sound like a load. > >-- >: Jan Steinman <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >: Bytesmiths <http://www.Bytesmiths.com> >: 19280 Rydman Court, West Linn, OR 97068, 503.635.3229 Hello Jan I don't think the Biox process claims to use lipase. Seems to use just about everything else though, except a pinch of salt maybe. Lipase catalysis is an established biodiesel production method, with quite a few advantages, and some disadvantages, but not done on a backyard scale yet, though quite a lot of people are interested in that. Best Keith ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 22 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:19:56 -0400 From: studio53 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: WVO for heat, preliminary results Stephen, I've been "working" on this idea for some time. I acquired a spare Becket burner that I will continue experimenting with. I have a 115,000 BTU oil-fired burner ( no water jacket involved) for the household heat. The motor (not on the burner) for moving the forced hot air around the house is 1725rpm. The nozzle is 1.25 gal /hr. Regarding your project, The timer you need to delay the wvo/ho mixture is already built into your system at the variable-heat differential switch which starts the forced hot air fan. Mine is set at about two minutes, but can be lengthened. I still need to set up an electric zone-valve for the switch-over which also will require a separate tank. I think an old converted 75 gallon water tank just might do the trick, but of course this would not pass city code inspection. Better off with a standard oil tank, but depending on the situation of where it's located, it might need Seems like a separate pump would also be needed. What would be ideal is if the other side of the shaft on the main electric blower/ fuel pump motor of the primary burner could turn an auxillary second pump for that extra tank. Then the only connection between the two two would be that switchable valve. Another aspect I've been looking at is the amount of heat that gets lost going up the chimney, but that's another project. My questions for are: What is the BTU output of your furnace? What nozzle size is are you using? You might be able to increase your wvo/ho ration with a larger nozzle? What is the source of your WVO and are you prefiltering before adding to the #2 heating oil? I took a look at the Babington burner which is basically an open uncontrolled flame and decided it's not the way I want to go. I feel to much can go wrong with it. With the forced hot air oil burner, everything is basically already there. I'm eager to know how your project is going. Let me know. Jesse Parris | studio53 | graphics / web design | stamford, ct | 203.324.4371 www.jesseparris.com/Portfolio_Jesse_Parris/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "sbosco9" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <biofuel@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 10:36 PM Subject: [biofuel] WVO for heat, preliminary results > Hello from the newbie on the list > > I have been having some success with burning WVO in a traditional oil > burner. I at first attempted running it through mixed with an equal > amount of #2 heating oil (aka diesel fuel)- although the mixture > seemed to atomize normally, the mist only partially ignited. Second > attempt, I mixed one part WVO with two parts #2 oil, this ignited > almost completely. I have now logged about one hour of burning this > mixture, starting from a cold state several times. The combustion > makes an oscillating sound for a couple of minutes on startup, along > with some puffs of blowback through the cracks in the boiler door, > but it cleans up after the burner has been on for 2-3 minutes. The > improvement could be due to the heat which has built up in the > firebox walls- at that point the flame is clean white with very > little smoke. > After reading some of the things which have been written on this > subject, I was expecting the WVO to block my nozzle orifice, but, > (knock on oil can) this hasn't happened yet. > > > I'd like to eliminate the initial dodginess in the flame, and I'd > also like to increase my ratio of WVO to #2 oil- one way I might be > able to accomplish this is to start the burner with pure #2 oil then > switch over to WVO/#2 mix after the firebox is good and hot (following > the model employed in WVO burning cars). Preheating the oil also > occurred to me, but it seems like any preheating I could do safely > would be pretty modest compared with the firebox heat. > > Another idea is to build a babington style burner, which I have begun > to assemble the parts for. I suspect that this type of burner will > suffer from the same problem though- incomplete combustion of the oil > mist at lower temperatures. The only babington style burner which I > have seen in action was affixed to a 4" diameter steel tube about 20" > long, again, possibly to build up heat quickly and radiate it back > onto the flame. > > Comments welcome. > > > Stephen Bosco > Arlington, Mass., USA > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 23 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:55:40 -0000 From: "pcooke04102" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: process questions Hello and thank you for the help so far. I am washing this batch that I have had questions about and will let you know. I did some background reading and have decided I will probably wash my fuel for now on even though I do know of some people who don't wash their fuel and have not had any negative effects. The cuastic (ness) of the fuel seems like it could screw the fule pump up...by the way, does anyone know if there are rubber parts in a VW TDI fuel pump? What specifically could degrade within it? I imagine there could be issues with the injectors and such-anyway I will be using the idaho bw. Should I wait for the fuel to be clear before washing it a second time or will a second wash clear it up more? How long does one let a batch settle for after a wash, generally, a few days, a week 2 weeks? This batch has set for almost a week and I'm wondering about washing it again now. Any suggestions? By the way, in response to the question about ethanol, I recommend looking up those previous posts that Keith suggested-I have limited experience maing the bio-D and no experience with using ethanol with it. Thanks again-PC ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 24 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 13:00:16 -0000 From: "pcooke04102" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: boiling glycerine/soap Here is a qustion for soap makers. I am trying to make soap out of the waste glycerine. I boiled 2 liters glycerine at 160 degrees F for about 15 minutes. Is this enough time to evaporate all the methanol out? How do you know when its been evaporated. I then combined 50 grams of lye/liter of glycerine when both were at temps around 100 degrees F and poured into the bottom of a plastic jug. Looks like I have round disk of soap. I think I'll try adding fragrance to the next batch to see if its workable, just wondering about the methanol being gone-which I'm assuming it is. Any comments or suggestions? Thanks in advance-PC ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Message: 25 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 09:12:08 -0500 From: "Ehren Bucholtz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: sodium methoxide, was Re: process questions The key to maintaining reactivity with any alkoxide (methoxide, ethoxide, etc.) is to keep it as dry as possible. Alkoxides are very strong bases, and in the presence of water, pull a proton off of the water. this regenerates the alcohol, and produces hydroxide ion. For example, if sodium hydroxide is added to methanol, the methanol is converted to sodium methoxide by pulling a proton off of methanol forming a water molecule in the process. Since there is so much more methanol than water molecules at this point, the possibility of that water molecule coming in contact with that newly generated methoxide ion is very small. However, if the air is very humid, and water can be aborbed by the solvent(methanol in this case) It increases the possiblity of the water being able to "neutralize" the methoxide ion that was generated. Hence, the longer the solution sits, the greater chance of neutralizing the methoxide. If one wanted to be very careful about generating the methoxide, a head of dry nitrogen could be maintained in the reaction vessel to prevent any air moisture from coming in contact with the sodium methoxide in methanol solution. This is rather impractical for the homebrewer, so it is best to use the methoxide solution as soon as possible. I have also had problems with using "old" methanol for the biodiesel reaction. It appeared that the methanol absorbed water from the air over time. I was able to overcome this with addition of molecular sieves to the methanol, thereby drying it. This is also the reason that using dry ethanol is so crucial when forming ethyl esters. Ethanol is a great dessicant by itself and can pull moisture out of the air. Thanks for letting me put in my 0.02 USD, I have been lurking for a couple of months but finally felt I had something to add of value. Ehren >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/26/02 02:04AM >>> Hello Gray (I feel like I'm shadowing you all over the internet today or something) This is one of the places where from the fryer to the fuel tank is wrong/outdated, one more reason to get your information elsewhere! Could someone here set me straight on my understanding of the chemistry? the tickell book is adamant about using the methoxide immediately. But Ive been told that it's exposure to carbon dioxide that';s the problem with sodium methoxide going bad, not a time factor instead. If you keep it sealed tightly against air it'll keep- Todd, you guys make up methoxide ahead of time, right? (see also the really convenient and safer method called 'methoxide the easy way' in a two-stage (?) article on journey to forever, it's something I'd like us to be doing more at the berkeley co-op, Gray, though it certainly takes preparation ahead of time (you do the titration and mix the methoxide a day before you make fuel) that might not be practical in our situation) anyway, I'd like to know if CO is what the problem with storing methoxide is, or if it's a matter of evaporation or they just got it all wrong in that book (I doubt either of the latter). And when improperly-stored methoxide 'goes bad', what is it breaking down into? and is any of this at all a factor to consider in biodiesel production, as in, the various people who argue both for and against agitating with 'howling vortexes' and the like? Lastly, is any of this different if you're dealing with ethanol or kOH? Mark --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "T. Gray Shaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Peter, > > I keep waiting for someone with more experience to bring this up: You said > you waited overnight to add the last 1/4 of the methoxide. I quote from > _From the Fryer..._: "The biodiesel reaction is time-sensitive. You must > mix the sodium methoxide with the vegetable oil immediately after the > sodium methoxide is created." The answer to why you didn't get gelatinous > glycerine in the second stage and your final product is cloudy seems > obvious to me - or am I misunderstanding something? > > - Gray > > > >I have some questions regarding a 30 gallon batch I just made and > >would really appreciate some help. > >I have been using the 2 stage method this summer with success. I use > >6.25 grams of lye/litre of wvo with 25% of the volume of the wvo > >being methanol. 3/4 of that was added to the wvo and produced syrupy > >dark brown glycerine (like last time I made it). The next day I added > >the last 1/4 of the methoxide but did not get the gelatinous > >glycerine like I did last time, but got the dark liquidy syrup again. > >I am wondering why. Also, the final product is cloudy which might > >mean water in it. I have heated the final product to about 135-140 > >for a half hour but it did not seem to permanently get rid of the > >cloudiness. I do not wish to do the wash at the end-I've been having > >success running unwashed, clear fuel. So, knowing that I should heat > >the wvo hotter and longer before the process here are my questions: > > > >1) Why did I not get gelationous glycerine in the second stage? > > > >2 )Is the cloudiness water even though my reliable source of wvo does > >not let water get into his oil? > > > >3) What temp and how long do you need to heat the final product to > >evap the water-without evaporating the methanol (which boils off at > >140 degrees, I assume). > > > >4) Is the methanol that has successfully mixed with the oil in danger > >of boiling off above 140 degrees or will only the excess methanol > >boil off. > > > >5) If the cloudiness is water, why doesn't the water settle to the > >bottom the way it would after a wash? Why does it stay suspended? > >Does it eventually settle out to the bottom leaving clear bio-d on > >top? > > > >My batch before this one came out crystal clear and the car purrs > >with it. I don't want to run a cloudy mix in the car, should I wait > >to see if it settles-or heat it up again? Again how hot, how long.... > > > >Thanks in advance, > > > >Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > > >Biofuels list archives: > >http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > >To unsubscribe, send an email to: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/